Subscribe Today
Request a Clip
Following are excerpts from a speech delivered by Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, which aired on Al-Manar TV on August 9, 2006:
Hassan Nasrallah: We acted in a responsible manner. When the prime minister presented the seven-point plan, and it was discussed by the government, we considered this proposal in a positive light. We had reservations about several points. There are some points about which we have no reservations in principle, but their details require discussion. These reservations were noted in the protocols of the meeting. But it was important to all of us to present unanimous agreement on this plan, in order to face the world with it, as I mentioned in a previous message.
On the media level, we put aside our reservations and comments, and the government presented a seven-point plan, as a proposal or a formula for political measures, which would stop the aggression and war, and could be relied on vis-a-vis the international community, and the Arab countries. Afterwards, the Arab countries supported the Lebanese government's seven-point plan. Some of these points concern the deployment of the army, and I will go into this in detail in a short while.
At any rate, the Lebanese government presented the seven-point plan, but this plan encountered the American and French draft of the proposal presented to the Security Council. The least that can be said about this resolution proposal is that it is unfair and unjust, and that it gives the Israelis more than they wanted or asked for.
[...]
Lebanese, Arab, and international efforts have begun, one way or another, in order to change the French-American resolution proposal, in a way that would meet the Lebanese demands, as presented in the government's seven-point plan. At any rate, within the framework of these political and diplomatic efforts, and in the course of this great political and diplomatic campaign, it will become clear who stands by Lebanon, and who completely prefers Israel over Lebanon.
Within the framework of these efforts, we have been told that if the government were to convene and make a decision to deploy the Lebanese army in the border region... After all, the Lebanese army is present in the south, and south of the Litani River. Some people talk about "the deployment of the army in the south." The army is present south of the Litani. True, the army as an army in not present near the border region. Over there, there is an official Lebanese security force, several security agencies, and the military intelligence. [We have been told] that if the government declares its willingness to send the Lebanese army, 15,000 soldiers, to be deployed throughout this region, this would be very helpful to Lebanon and its friends in their pressure to change the resolution draft, which is being formulated and debated in the Security Council. This would pave the way for the appropriate political measures, which would lead to the cessation of aggression against Lebanon.
But although the Lebanese government declared its unanimous decision... Many people noted the word "unanimous." True, it was unanimous, but the result is that the American administration is still insisting upon its terms.
[...]
As for our position regarding the deployment of the army in the border region - true, in the past we opposed, or did not accept, the army's deployment along the border, not because we doubt the army, God forbid. This army is a patriotic army, and for many years we have been praising it, its combat doctrine, its command, and its composition. On several occasions, we expressed our great faith in this army, in its commanders, its officers, and its soldiers, because this army is made up of the people - and its men, its youth, and its sons - and is no different from the essence of this proud, loyal people.
When we objected or expressed reservations, we did not do so out of fear of the army - because there is no way the sons of this army could be afraid of it. The truth is that we were afraid for the army.
[...]
Now I say: True, we agreed in the government - and I will explain our considerations shortly - to the deployment of the army in the border region, but we do not hide our fears for it, because when we send the army to the border region, considering the present condition and capabilities of the army, and especially as long as the pending issues between Lebanon and the Israeli enemy have not yet been dealt with, and especially if Lebanon continues to be subject to the Israeli violations of its sovereignty, which have not ceased since the 2000 Israeli withdrawal, [which occur] by air, sea, and land - this means placing the army in the mouth of the monster. We have fears for the army. But, as long as... Sorry, there is another fear that we have openly expressed. We said that when the army goes to the border, it must defend Lebanon and protect the homeland, rather than protecting the enemy. At any rate, the role of the army - whether to defend the homeland or the enemy - is not up to the military command, but to the political rule. Now, in its last session, the Lebanese government determined that the basic role of the army is to defend the homeland, and to protect it with its presence along the border, and to maintain domestic security. So there is a clear decision, and these fears are no longer warranted.
Secondly, if everybody believes that the deployment of the army will help find a political way out that will lead to the cessation of the aggression - which, in our view, is a respectable, patriotic way out, because it will be the national army that will be deployed along the border, not occupying forces, mercenary forces, or forces acting on the orders of the enemies... It will be the national army, acting on the orders of the elected Lebanese government. In this sense, we accept this as a way out, despite the fears I just mentioned. We will not hinder such a decision.
These are the considerations. Deploying the Lebanese army will protect our sovereignty and independence. This is a better option than the deployment of international forces, because we would not know who gives them their orders, or what their mission is. True, we agreed - and there's a consensus on this seven-point plan - to reinforce UNIFIL forces to help the Lebanese army fulfill its role and carry out its mission.
Other things were said pertaining to what would happen after the deployment of the Lebanese army in the border region, or, to be more precise - the completion of the army's deployment south of the Litani. I will not discuss these issues at present. I will leave them to the internal discussions, because responsibility and solidarity require me to do so at present, for several reasons.
At the moment, despite the Lebanese national consensus over the government's proposal and adherence to the seven-point plan, the Americans are still preventing any possibility of reaching a resolution proposal that will take into account the Lebanese national demands and the Lebanese national rights. The Americans continue to make every effort to impose Israel's terms upon Lebanon, and to fulfill Israel's interests in their entirety, at the expense of Lebanon's interests.
At this point, I would like once again to call for political determination and for political steadfastness, and not to give in to the American dictates and pressures.
Latest Clips
